Reddit reviews The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made it

Slavery was part of the economic and political circumstance that was the major driving dilemma behind the war. Talking about the Civil War as though it were solely or even primarily about slavery is a self-serving misrepresentation. The fact of the matter is that, while there were abolitionists in the North (as well as in the South), the war likely never would have taken place had it not been for the economic reliance of the manufacturing North on the agricultural South. So long as the North was reliant on the South for the raw materials and agricultural labor that made manufacture possible, Northern social life was complicit in the institution of slavery. Meanwhile, the South parlayed that economic interdependence into political power. The war was, in large part, a way of breaking the political willfulness of the South, an aspect that shows up most clearly in the rhetoric over state's rights.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln was originally resolved to avoid the issue of emancipation (see, e.g., Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition), preferring instead to concentrate on the unity of the federal system as against the prerogatives of state-centric governance. He only gravitated toward resolving the abolition issue later in the war when it became clear that doing so would help settle the whole issue and put an end to a war that had cost the nation grievously.

The gist: It would be incorrect to say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but it wasn't solely about slavery, and there's good reason for supposing that other issues were just as formative, if not more so. It would be more accurate to say that slavery was part of a complex of related economic and political issues, and that the whole complex of those disputes drive the war.

None of which undermines the contention that slavery was the most important moral issue settled by the war. From our perspective, slavery was the paramount issue of the war, since most of us find the idea of living in a country that still condoned institutionalized slavery thoroughly repugnant. But we shouldn't allow our moral clarity to obscure the historical contingencies that actually drove the war.

This is the Confederation flag. This is the Confederate flag (1). The latter is definitely a racist symbol, the former arguably is too by the same standard, but is not associated with the South. But that doesn't really matter.

Pride and appreciation for Southern history is pride and appreciation for slavery. "Racial tension" is a monstrous understatement. The American south was an extraordinary exploiter of slave labour. It's economy and its culture were based on slavery to an extraordinary degree (2) Unless you are using this flag with the a large footnote disclaiming support for slavery then you are employing a racist symbol. And, let's face it, if it needs that disclaimer....

The flag is a symbol and we attach meanings to symbols. The Swastika is not inherently racist or even necessarily tied to Nazism, but that doesn't mean its use would not be pretty racist.

And I think that's gets to the more important point. The flag isn't racist, but it sure can be used in racist ways. No one would accuse a museum displaying a flag as being racist, but a a state legislature that hangs one or an individual who flies it on their property is at the very least acting in complete ignorance of the horrific history of that image. And that sort of willful ignorance could only be described as racist.

1. Though several others were used.
   
   
2. There are a few good books about the southern tradition of slavery apologia that I can't remember the names of, but I'd recommend The American Political Tradition which demonstrates the basic idea while being much more readable. See also this document identifying the purpose for the war from the South Carolinian perspective. Repeated mentions of slavery. This post, though pretty tactless, is a very good (if not thorough) response to many of the ideas that support glorifying "Southern Culture"/defence of Sherman (Like I said, a bit tactless).

Fair enough. Personally, I think that quote doesn't apply to a healthy democracy; instead, in a healthy democracy, the people and the government have a mutually beneficial relationship. Locke's social contract and what have you.

Mmm...a little cynical, sure. But it's true. That was the intent. General Knox wrote to George Washington following Shay's Rebellion, saying that Americans were "men - actual men possessing all the turbulent passions belonging to that animal."

Alexander Hamilton, at the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, urged that the "turbulent and changing" masses, "seldom judge or determine right."

If you want more on this concept, I really recommend Richard Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition. The first chapter on "The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism" is quite the eye-opener. I'll edit in a link to it if I can find one.

Oh, and don't worry. I wasn't referring to a revolution. I was referring to the democratic process.

(Here; click on the "Look Inside!" thing. That should give a few pages of what I was referring to. I hope you like it! I found this book really interesting)